Click Here For The Cutest Baby Clothes!
Posted by @ 2:38 pm
Shelved under Single Moms

illustration - baby eatingOn January 12, Earth’s Best celebrated its 25th anniversary by ringing the NASDAQ Stock Market Opening Bell. Hours later, I was at the grocery store, standing at the register, watching the clerk slide each pretty little glass jar over the scanner. $1, $2, $3… $9… $18. I left the store with $30 less in my pocket and a (reusable) bag full of organic baby food. $30? I didn’t get more than a week’s worth, I thought to myself. But $30 is what it takes to feed my 8-month-old boy three square meals a day. Three square pesticide-free meals a day.

There’s definitely a trend toward buying organic that cannot be dismissed. Due to growing demand, supermarkets are stocking up on organic everything (including baby food) and sales are through the roof: According to a survey by the Organic Trade Association (OTA) U.S. sales of organic foods reached $22.9 billion in 2008, a 15.8% increase over 2007 sales. And despite the recession, organic food sales are still booming.

Is organic baby food really worth that price?

Some would argue no.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), despite the fact that organic foods are produced without conventional pesticides, antibiotics, or growth hormones, they are no more nutritious than other store-bought foods. Likewise, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not guarantee that organic foods are safer or more nutritious. And according to a study conducted this past summer commissioned by the British government’s Food Standards Agency, “there is no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.”

Chew on this
The biggest offenders of pesticide-laden foods are just the foods moms and dads want their young children (starting in infancy) to be eating: apples, pears, oranges, to name a few. TreeHugger.com posted a slideshow of the top 12 offenders (check it out, we think you’ll be surprised). Armed with the knowledge that pesticides may harm the development of babies’ brains, given a choice between organic foods or conventionally produced ones, is there really a choice?

As I introduce my son to these basic fruits, I am comforted by the “Certified Organic by the USDA” seal on his baby food jars. I know they contain no artificial colors, flavors, no preservatives or genetically engineered ingredients, no added salt, no added sugar. I am a bargain shopper, but not when it comes to my baby’s health. So this week (and for many weeks after) I’ll be back in line at the grocery store—30 jars up, $30 down.

Posted by @ 9:32 pm
Shelved under Single Moms

mom feeding baby solidsA carrot-filled spoon zooms overhead as a mother mimics the sound of an airplane. “Just two more bites,” she cajoles. Her two-month-old baby, positioned upright in an infant seat, clamps his lips shut. He doesn’t want the vegetable. But she persists until the last of the carrots are consumed. To even the casual observer, it’s obvious the baby doesn’t share his mother’s enthusiasm for carrots. At least—not yet.

Many moms across America will recognize this ritual—one that is repeated three times a day in their homes. It is the transition from breast or bottle to solid foods—one that all babies will inevitably make. And it is a milestone that can be, at times, frustrating, with your baby seeming to refuse everything that’s offered. While no one questions the need for transitioning to solids foods, there is little consensus as to its timing.

Two months? Three months? Four months? Six months? Is there an ideal time to introduce solids—a window of opportunity that shouldn’t be missed? If your baby refuses to eat his carrots, does it mean you introduced the vegetable too early? Too late? And, does it matter?

If you are confused about when to start introducing solid foods to your baby’s diet, you are not alone. The American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) Committee on Nutrition recommends starting solids between the ages of four to six months, but its Work Group on Breastfeeding along with the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that parents breastfeed for the first six months of life and wait until the second half of the first year to introduce solid foods. The controversy surrounding the introduction of solid foods continues unabated, leaving parents with no choice but to guess… and hope their baby doesn’t clamp up. But timing does matter.

When is the best time to introduce solids?
Numerous studies have looked at how the timing of the introduction of solid foods affects allergic disease. Investigators in Belarus found no reduction in the risk of asthma and other allergic diseases at six-and-a-half years of age in children who were exclusively breastfed for three months. Finnish researchers found that late introduction of solid foods (after seven months) may actually increase the risk for food allergy.

In a 2007 clinical report, the AAP states that there is insufficient evidence to support delaying the introduction of solid foods beyond four to six months. But adds that breastfeeding is the best protection against allergic disease, even though breastfeeding cannot prevent food allergy in high risk children.

There is data that also suggests a relationship between the timing of the introduction of solids and obesity. Parent surveys of more than 12,000 children at the age of nine months, three years, and five years (as part of the UK-wide Millenium Cohort Study) prompted the recommendation that solid foods be introduced no sooner than four months of age. They found that when solids were introduced before four months, children (26%) were more likely to be overweight or obese at three and five years of age compared to babies given solid foods after four months (22%). Researchers also concluded that children who were not breastfed were more likely to become overweight (23%) compared with those breastfed for at least four months (18%).

Is six months ideal? Why not five months? Human milk provides all the nutrients babies need for about the first six months, including iron. But once the iron stored during pregnancy is used up, at about six months of age, iron-rich foods such as meats or iron-fortified cereals need to be added to babies’ diets. In addition, most babies are developmentally ready for solid foods around six months.

The bottom line
Delaying solid foods until seven months may increase a baby’s risk for allergies. And introducing solids foods before the age of four months may increase the risk for obesity, no small concern, given that a staggering one out of every three U.S. children is overweight. The ideal time to introduce those sweet-smelling carrots is sometime between the ages of four and six months. Is it a sure bet your baby will unclamp his jaws at four months? Not really. The only way to determine whether he’s ready for solids is observation. Remember this motto: Watch your baby, not the calendar.

Signs that your baby is ready for solid foods include the ability to sit up with little support, hold his head up, pick up soft foods, and put those foods in his mouth. And if your baby doesn’t react willingly to a spoon touching his lips, it is likely he’s trying to communicate that he’s not ready.

Patience is one of parenting’s few prerequisites. If you don’t have it, you will acquire it. And don’t worry, every baby—including yours—will eventually chow down on carrots (and peas and bananas and pears…).

Posted by @ 3:54 pm
Shelved under Single Moms

iStock_000001985933XSmallI cultivated my sweet tooth at a young age, born into a family where Hostess Sno Balls and Twinkies were the preferred after-school snack. I could have/should have washed down the crumbly treats with a glass of milk, but chose instead an ice cold Coke—21 teaspoons of sugar, the equivalent of 90 grams or 450 calories. Is it any wonder that my siblings and I struggle with weight gain?

The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends that women consume no more than 6 teaspoons of added sugar a day (100 calories or 25 grams). For men the recommendation is no more than 9 teaspoons (150 calories or 38 grams)—the equivalent of one 12 ounce can of Coke for guys and one cup of vanilla ice cream for gals.

In 2009, the AHA, citing new evidence showing that added sugars increase the risk of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes, issued a public warning, “Dietary Sugars Intake and Cardiovascular Health,”  cautioning Americans to limit their intake of added sugars.

Added sugars (as opposed to sugars that occur naturally in foods) have been described by the AHA as discretionary calories. For example, an average woman needs 1800 calories a day. In order to get the amounts of vegetables, fruits, lean protein, dairy products, and whole grains her body needs, she will spend 1600 calories, leaving only 200 calories for whatever else she wants to eat or drink. If what she ‘wants’ exceeds 200 calories, she will need to burn those extra calories or risk gaining weight.

Between 1970 and 2005, Americans’ average annual intake of sugar increased by 19%, with sugar-sweetened beverages, particularly soft drinks leading the way. In a study of 51,000 women, those who gained the most weight over a four-year-period were those who went from drinking no more than one soft drink a week to drinking at least one a day. So much for, “Have a Coke and a smile.”

While weight gain, especially in the mid-section can increase the risk of heart disease, data suggest that sugar-sweetened beverages may cause heart disease regardless of whether you gain weight. Harvard researchers followed nearly 90,000 women for 24 years and found that those who drank two or more sugar-sweetened beverages a day had a 20% higher risk of heart disease compared to those who drank less than one a month. Researcher have theorized that the increased risk may be related to the fact that sugar, specifically fructose, raises triglyceride levels.

Fructose versus glucose
Sucrose (table sugar) contains equal parts of fructose and glucose. Fructose is taken up by the liver where it is converted into fat. Much of the fat is excreted into the bloodstream, increasing triglyceride levels and the risk of heart disease. In contrast, glucose is absorbed directly into the bloodstream, increasing blood sugar levels and the risk of diabetes. When it comes to sugars, one is as bad as the next.

Calorie-free but not risk-free
Research shows that artificial sweeteners can reduce the risk of weight gain. But given the lack of safety data, artificial sweeteners should be used with caution, especially in children and young adults.

The bottom line
Added sugars have no redeeming value. Most sugary foods are simply junk foods. The following suggestions will help keep you and your family healthy:

  • Limit added sugars to no more than 100 to 150 calories a day for women and men.
  • Avoid all sugar-sweetened beverages.
  • Limit fruit juices to no more than 1 cup a day.
  • Estimate your calorie needs and those of your children at mypyramid.gov

In case you were wondering, a two-pack of Hostess Twinkies and Sno Balls contain 9½ and 11½ teaspoons of sugar respectively—two days’ worth of added sugar.

Posted by @ 3:54 pm
Shelved under Single Moms

1260771131_lo Audrey Samsara Eyes OpenThe day will come when U.S. mothers can truly feel safe breastfeeding their babies and young children anywhere, anytime, anyplace. I likely won’t live long enough to see the culmination of the cultural transformation that is currently underway in America, but I am confident that my children will one day view breastfeeding not as best, optimal, perfect, or ideal, but simply as normal. And I know that ultimately their children, my grandchildren, will reap the benefits.

While many find the slow pace of change frustrating, age confers a level of patience and confidence in knowing that measured, thoughtful change is more often lasting.

How we view breastfeeding was the subject of “Nurture,” a solo exhibition by New York- and New Hampshire-based artist Amy Jenkins, held January 9-February 28, 2010 at the Athens Institute for Contemporary Art (ATHICA) in Athens, Georgia. As compelling as the exhibit, is an accompanying essay by baby gooroo contributor Mary Jessica Hammes.

Hammes explores attitudes toward non-sexual nudity, artistic censorship, competing business interests, and the health benefits of breastfeeding.

“Nurture,” says Hammes, explores “the different meanings of what it means to nurture a child, to raise a human being, starting with the simple act of feeding one.”

But Hammes’ essay, like Jenkins’ images is about so much more than nutrition.

“In Jenkins’ images, breastfeeding begins to mean something deeper—something that links us to those hunter-gatherers of long ago, something that sustains modern families as we navigate contemporary parenting. At the very least “Nurture” makes breastfeeding visible. And if visibility makes something feel normal and therefore more accepted by our culture, then exhibits like “Nurture” could make a big difference in what goes into the mouths of babes.”

I hope Hammes is right. Time is running short.

Posted by @ 4:36 pm
Shelved under Single Moms

iStock_000003426089XSmallEmployed by the Red Cross after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, text messaging contributed to record donations. In less dire circumstances but indicative of the popularity of text messaging, millions text their vote for their favorite American Idol. But what can text messaging do for you?

With text4baby, the National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition (HMHB) is flipping the text message and using it to help expectant and new moms.

The familiar ping, ding, or ringtone sounds out from your handset:

“Give your baby a good start by not drinking alcohol, smoking or using drugs. For help call 800-784-8669 (smoking); 800-662-4357 (drugs & alcohol).”

“Feeling happy one minute and sad the next? It’s just your hormones changing. But if you’re always sad and anxious call your doctor or 800-944-4773.”

HMHB partnered with more than 150 communications and health care providers to deliver customized health information right into the hands of pregnant women and new mothers.

Text4baby subscribers receive free messages about what to expect during pregnancy and/or how to care for their health and the babies’ health during the first year after birth.

Women who are not frequently online will find text4baby a useful alternative to weekly pregnancy and parenting e-mails coming from so many directions. For women who are sometimes or often online, the text updates may serve as a supplement to the more detailed weekly email messages.

Since its launch just a few weeks ago on February 2nd, text4baby has gained more than 16,000 subscribers from across the U.S.

Who’s behind the messages?
HMHB is the driving force behind text4baby, but it relies on a broad public-private partnership of government agencies, corporations, academic institutions, professional agencies and non-profit organizations. If it sounds like a big umbrella, it is. More than 150 organizations are working together to help this project succeed.

Founding partners include HMHB, Voxiva, CTIA—The Wireless Foundation, and Grey Healthcare Group, while Johnson & Johnson is a founding sponsor. Premier sponsors include WellPoint, Pfizer, and CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield. Several agencies of the federal government are also partners, including the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), and the Department of Defense Military Health System. Other partners include wireless service providers, MTV Networks, and BabyCenter.

Written by HMHB in collaboration with HHS, CDC, NICHD, physicians and nurses, the messages cover topics ranging from health care access, labor & delivery, immunization, breastfeeding, nutrition, and prenatal care to drugs and alcohol, emotional well-being, smoking cessation, mental health, care seat safety, safe sleep, oral health, pregnancy symptoms & warnings, exercise, and developmental milestones. There’s something for everyone here.

Based on the due date or date of birth the women enters when she subscribes to text4baby, messages are customized accordingly. For example, a pregnant woman is reminded of the proper way to position a seat belt across her pregnant belly: “A seat belt protects you & your baby. Shoulder belt goes between your breasts & lap strap goes under your belly (not on or above). Wear it every time.”

A new mom might be given a phone number to call for help with postpartum depression: “It’s normal for new moms to feel tired & overwhelmed. But if you’re crying a lot or feeling anxious or hopeless, please call 800-944-4773.”

Later, as she is settling into her baby’s routine she might be reminded about dental care: “Keeping your baby’s mouth clean is important even before she has teeth! Wipe her gums with a wet washcloth or use a soft baby toothbrush.”

How to sign up?
Women can sign up with just two simple steps:

1. Text BABY (or BEBE in Spanish) to 511411.
2. At the prompt, enter zip code and baby’s due date or date of birth.

New subscribers receive a welcome message followed by approximately three free tips each week. Messages end when a subscriber texts STOP to the same number, or on the baby’s first birthday. It couldn’t get any easier than that.

Posted by @ 6:56 pm
Shelved under Single Moms

iStock_000007778829XSmallA toddler stands next to a young mother as she puts a fresh diaper on her newborn baby. “Too bad you had to get a bald-headed one,” says the toddler. And just like that Johnson & Johnson had a hit commercial on its hands and pop culture had another buzz line.

While bald-headed babies are still common today, it is the growing number of flat-headed babies that is causing a stir. Flat heads may indeed be used to describe this generation of babes, but results from a recent study suggest that more than appearances are at stake.

Researchers in Washington State reported that babies with flat areas on their heads scored lower on cognitive and motor development tests than infants with normal-shaped heads.

Method
A total of 472 babies ranging in age from 4-12 months participated in the study. One-half of the babies had been diagnosed with flat head syndrome, the other half were considered normal. In addition to taking three-dimensional photographs of each infant’s head, researchers measured cognitive and motor development using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development III (BSID-III), which are tests designed to measure language, problem-solving, memory, and motor skills.

Results
After controlling for age, gender, and socioeconomic status, infants with normal-shaped heads scored higher on all of the BSID-III scales compared to those with flat heads. To determine whether the differences persist into childhood, infants who participated in the study will be reevaluated at 18 and 36 months of age. Although these preliminary results clearly show an association between flat heads and developmental delay, there is no evidence that having a flat head actually causes the delay. Children with flat heads may simply be at increased risk for developmental delay for reasons unknown.

Although the incidence of flat-headed babies is unclear, data shows that the number of babies diagnosed with flat head syndrome has risen, and that the rise coincides with the launch of the national Back-to-Sleep campaign, an initiative designed to protect babies from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

What causes babies to have flat heads?
In order to make room for a baby’s growing brain, the head or skull of newborns is made up of soft bones that slowly join together over a period of 9-18 months. When babies spend a lot of time in one position, for example, on their back, a flat spot can form on their head, and little or no hair may grow on that spot. This condition is called plagiocephaly— a fancy word for flat head. Once babies are able to turn from back to front and front to back (around 4 months of age), developing a flat head is less of a concern. But parents should continue to place babies on their backs to sleep throughout the first year.

Bottom line
Although placing babies on their backs to sleep is the best way to reduce the risk of SIDS, if babies spend too much time on their back they can get a flat head. To keep babies from getting a flat head, parents should be encouraged to put their babies on their stomach (tummy) when awake or to carry them upright in a sling. Tummy time not only reduces the risk for a flat head, but also helps to strengthen the muscles needed for crawling and sitting. Because the risk of SIDS is greater when babies are on their tummies, parents need to watch their babies carefully during tummy time sessions. If parents need to leave their baby alone, even for a minute or two, they should place them on their back until they return.

Preterm babies (babies born early) are more likely to get flat spots on their heads because their heads are even softer than heads of full-term babies. In addition, preterm babies often spend more time on their backs without being moved or held. To prevent flat heads, parents of preterm babies should be encouraged to hold them skin-to-skin against their chest, similar to how a mother kangaroo carries her joey in her pouch.  For more on kangaroo care check out these articles on babygooroo.

Posted by @ 6:56 pm
Shelved under Single Moms

iStock_000003010091XSmallBoth you and your baby are going to sleep terribly, possibly for months, so you might as well get used to the idea.

But don’t freak out—this is totally normal. All you have to do is make sure everyone lives through this tumultuous time. Pretend there’s a zombie war going on outside and your priority is basic survival. Do whatever it takes to stay alive. Believe that this too shall pass.

For those of you in the midst of intense sleep deprivation, you would probably like to take your computer and throw it at my head right now. No one wants to be told “this too shall pass.” You want immediate solutions that will make your baby sleep so you can feel like a person again. Trust me, I know; I’ve been there.

And it’s not enough that you’re tired; you’re likely terrified that even minute bedtime choices will ruin your kid for life. Over 30,000 people responded to a Babycenter.com poll about toddlers sleeping in their parents’ bed, and it turns out that 44 percent answered that their children “almost always” co-sleep. When asked how they felt about it, 26 percent said “I love it,” but 43 percent called it “not ideal.”

Are adults who like to co-sleep doing something wrong? Some sleep experts say yes. There are plenty of sleep advice books out there, but they all offer different advice when it comes to getting your child to sleep.

So what do the authors of the leading sleep advice books have to say, from stern Ferber to groovy Pantley and a few others in between?

Richard Ferber, Solve Your Child’s Sleep Problems (Fireside, 1986, 2006)
If you’ve heard someone talk about “Cry It Out” (or CIO, or “Ferberizing”), that person is talking about the technique developed by Richard Ferber, director of the Center for Pediatric Sleep Disorders at Children’s Hospital Boston. With CIO, you basically let your child scream his or her head off for specified, timed increments (which grow gradually longer over a few days’ time) until he or she finally figures out you aren’t coming and gives up (or passes out). I’ve always associated this approach with distraught parents who dread bedtime and their screaming children they feel forced to ignore. Once upon a time as a nanny, I was instructed to use this method at naptime for the children under my care, and let me tell you, it was no picnic (although it sometimes—not always—worked).

I was prepared to read “Solve Your Child’s Sleep Problems” with a derisive eye, already knowing that my parenting style didn’t jive with Ferber’s method. However, I discovered his technique, especially as explained in an updated edition of the book, isn’t quite as rigid as I had thought.

“Simply leaving a child in a crib to cry for long periods alone until he falls sleep, no matter how long it takes, is not an approach I approve of,” Ferber writes in the 2006 preface. “On the contrary, many of the approaches I recommend are designed specifically to avoid unnecessary crying.”

He calls his technique “progressive waiting” that encourages frequent (but somewhat detached, I thought) comforting throughout the process.

More helpful in the book is his section on helping your child learn new sleep associations–different ways to find comfort and go back to sleep after nighttime wakings. After all, it’s normal for both children and adults to wake during the night. Ferber suggests using a “transitional object” (like a favorite blanket) for comfort.

He also says that having a regular daytime schedule will help set a reasonable nighttime schedule, and that you must choose your child’s bedtime and keep it consistent.

What about co-sleeping? Well, the 1985 edition is clearly against the notion. “We know for a fact that people sleep better alone in bed,” he writes. (Is he suggesting that parents sleep in separate twin beds, like Rob and Laura Petrie on “The Dick Van Dyke Show”?)

“Sleeping in your bed can make your child feel confused and anxious rather than relaxed and reassured…If you allow him to crawl in between you and your spouse, in a sense separating the two of you, he may feel too powerful and become worried,” he writes. I confess I laughed out loud at that part, as I suspect many parents who have co-slept would. I wonder what an actual psychologist might say about that (maybe I should ask my father, a retired psychology professor who had no worries when I routinely slept with my parents as a child).

Ferber also insinuates that co-sleeping parents might have a screw loose. “If you find that you actually prefer to have your child in your bed, you should examine your own feelings carefully,” he writes, suggesting that such a desire hints at underlying selfishness or other issues that may require “professional counseling.”

Yet again, the 2006 edition has some changes to it, suggesting a more laid-back Ferber. Co-sleeping children, he writes, “are not prevented from learning to separate, or from developing their own sense of individuality, simply because they sleep with their parents. Whatever you want to do, whatever you feel comfortable doing, is the right thing to do, as long as it works.”

Elizabeth Pantley, The No-Cry Sleep Solution: Gentle Ways to Help Your Baby Sleep Through the Night (McGraw-Hill, 2002)
The No-Cry Sleep Solution for Toddlers and Preschoolers
(McGraw-Hill, 2005)
Pantley is like the anti-Ferber. Your first clue is title: “No-Cry” and “Gentle.”Another clue is that she calls CIO “mutual agony,” noting that babies are totally dependent and cry to remind you they have biological needs that need attention.

As someone who champions co-sleeping (as long as you follow safety precautions) and has practiced it herself, Pantley is a favorite among followers of attachment parenting. However, she does not advocate constant tending at the expense of your own sleep.

She talks about “sleep association,” in which babies associate (and feel they need) certain things with falling asleep. Pantley says she nursed one of her children to sleep for at least a year, and disagrees that it’s a negative sleep association (as the other sleep authors discussed here propose).

“It is probably the most positive, natural, pleasant sleep association a baby can have,” she writes in “The No-Cry Sleep Solution.” “The problem with this association is not the association itself, but our busy lives. If you had nothing whatsoever to do besides take care of your baby, this would be a very pleasant way to pass your days and nights until he naturally outgrew the need. After all, this is natural. You may not even see this as a problem, in which case it is not. It’s all a matter of your perception and your personal needs.”

She does acknowledge that “few parents have the luxury of putting everything else on hold until their baby gets older,” so she recommends gradual (not cold turkey) changes, namely ending a feeding session when the baby is drowsy but still awake.

In her The No-Cry Sleep Solution for Toddlers and Preschoolers, there’s an entire section called “The Nighttime Nursling.” In it Pantley sings breastfeeding’s praises, explains why a toddler might still want to nurse to sleep (and why parents may not want to give it up either), but suggests options like ending a nursing session gradually (following the blueprint laid out in her book the “Sleep Solution” ) and creating new routines. She even has advice on how to continue co-sleeping without breastfeeding.

“If your child is getting enough sleep, you are all sleeping well, and the people who live in your home are happy with the way things are working out, then nothing needs to be fixed, regardless of what anyone else has to say about your family’s sleeping solution,” she writes.

Kim West, The Sleep Lady’s Good Night, Sleep Tight (Vanguard Press, 2010)
In the interest of full disclosure: a photo of my son appears in this book and is used with permission.

Now that we’ve got Ferber and Pantly out of the way, this book is pretty middle-of-the-road, appealing to those who are wary of both CIO and co-sleeping. West, a licensed clinical social worker, seems more lenient with co-sleeping, but you can tell she’s not a huge fan (one of her chapters is called “Whose Bed Is It Anyway?”). If you invited West and Pantley over for a slumber party, Pantley would braid your hair and enthuse about co-sleeping bonding, while West would be at the foot of the bed saying, “Well, if it works for you, but…”

She’s coined a catchy phrase for her approach: The Sleep Lady Shuffle. It’s similar to CIO in that there are timed intervals of interaction, and the goal is to detach yourself from your baby as he cries—but you stay in the room for much of it. Over a series of nights, you move your position within the room closer to the door, using minimal touches to comfort the child, until you eventually find yourself outside the door.

She recommends against nighttime feeding entirely at a certain point. “One of my hardest tasks is convincing mothers that most healthy six- to eight-month-old babies on a normal growth curve don’t need to eat at night,” she writes.

Alison Scott-Wright, The Sensational Baby Sleep Plan (Transworld Publishers Ltd, 2010)
I recently read a very favorable Telegraph review for this book, so I thought I’d check it out. Scott-Wright, a former maternity nurse, sounds like a lovely woman who is well-liked by those who say they have found salvation through her help.

Alas, the actual sleep plan is nothing ground-breaking,and most of the book is devoted to infant feeding and consistently offers false information.

Scott-Wright makes a big deal about not vilifying women who are unable to or choose not to breastfeed, a sentiment with which I completely agree. But she goes to rather astonishing lengths—sometimes making statements that completely contradict research and what we have long known to be scientific truth—to make the point that formula feeding is actually preferable to breastfeeding.

“We all know, and are certainly told often enough, that ‘breast is best,’ but in my view it is better to adopt an approach that can be adapted to your lifestyle than to restrict yourself to a method that you may find difficult to maintain,” she writes. “I promote and support breastfeeding, but never to the detriment of mother or baby.”

Later, she lists seven benefits to exclusive breastfeeding (101 reasons can be found here), but 11 benefits to “Breastfeeding and expressing breast milk” and 13 to “Exclusive formula feeding.”

Some of the listed benefits to exclusive formula feeding are simply untrue, or are unsubstantiated opinions. We know that breastfeeding mothers do not have more dietary restrictions (she even includes a list of foods that “seem to cause problems,” including citrus fruit and curries). We know that breastfeeding mothers do not necessarily feel like “feeding machines.” We know that babies with reflux do not respond better to formula (good grief!) or that formula relieves a mother of “physical and emotional strain” (Um…ever hear of prolactin?). And it’s completely wrong (and dangerous, I feel) to suggest that formula-fed babies receive “more lasting satisfaction.”

Elsewhere, she suggests putting newborns on a breastfeeding schedule of 2-3 hours. She also includes recommendations on weaning, starting as early as 4 weeks of age. She devotes several pages to the common woes of breastfeeding problems, then writes, “It is a shame in today’s society that formula-feeding, when used in preference to breastfeeding, is almost frowned upon.” Research promoting breastfeeding over formula is “flawed,” she writes, right before several pages on how to choose bottles and nipples, making bottle-feeding sound absolutely fantastic—as if magical genies await your command to sterilize bottles and mix powder in the middle of the night. Dreamy!

Honestly, this book sets back breastfeeding promotion, I don’t know, let’s say a million years.

I really would like to say something positive about this book, but it takes three chapters to even get to what the “plan” is, and it appears to simply be a feeding schedule, which for newborns is every three hours during the day and every four hours during the night (with recommendations to supplement with formula by week two!), which again is counterproductive to establishing breastfeeding.

Near the end of the book, Scott-Wright addresses “sleep training,” which I assumed would be something along the lines of cry-it-out. But her sleep plan consists of creating a calm, quiet atmosphere, feeding the baby, putting him or her to bed and saying good night. If necessary, go back in to the room to reassure the baby, tell him good night again, and walk away. There are no timed intervals. If the baby cries, she simply advocates  doing the same thing over and over again until it works.

In other words, it’s the kind of common sense “sleep training” that doesn’t require a book to explain it.

So, whose advice should you follow?
When I mentioned on Facebook that I was working on this article, I immediately got comments from very tired parents, pleading for information that would help their babies and toddlers sleep better… and several almost apologizing for their babies who slept through the night, no Ferberizing required, by three months.

I wish I could give you the definitive advice that will help your baby sleep better, but that’s impossible. Some advice makes sense—like having a consistent and early bedtime routine—but when it comes to selecting cleverly named sleep plans, methods of inching your way out of your kid’s room, or your comfort level for hysterical screaming, only you can choose what works for your family.

You could pick and choose the bits and pieces you like the best— a little Ferber here, a little Pantley there. To paraphrase a friend, “use what works and leave the rest.”

Remember my initial analogy. There are zombies out there, and you have not yet succumbed—no, you will not succumb. You will survive! When the tanks come in to blow off the undead’s heads, you’ll still be there—cozily tucked up in your bed, fast asleep. Just keep telling yourself that.

Posted by @ 4:08 pm
Shelved under Single Moms

Weigh inFirst Lady Michelle Obama put eliminating childhood obesity at the top of her To Do list with the launch of Let’s Move, her much anticipated anti-obesity campaign. Mrs. Obama is hoping to reverse a dangerous and costly trend. Currently, one out of three U.S. children is overweight or obese. Among black children the rate is even higher, affecting one out of two children. For the first time since 1968, life expectancy is projected to decline.

Several high profile organizations and industries have agreed to join forces with the First Lady. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) announced that from now on its members will be encouraged to routinely measure body mass index (BMI), a measure of obesity, in their young patients. In addition, the beverage industry has promised to clearly label sugary drinks, and the food industry has promised to reduce the amount of sugar in school lunches.

But limiting sugar and measuring fat is only part of the solution. Keeping children from getting fat in the first place is the ultimate goal; a goal that many argue is best achieved when children are breastfed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was among the first to recognize the importance of breastfeeding as a strategy for preventing obesity. In 1999, the CDC funded obesity prevention programs in 25 U.S. states. Each program targeted five areas:

  • Increase physical activity.
  • Increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables.
  • Decrease the consumption of sugar sweetened beverages.
  • Increase breastfeeding initiation, duration and exclusivity.
  • Reduce the consumption of high energy dense foods.
  • Decrease television viewing.

Importance of breastfeeding

New York State recently identified five strategies for improving health with breastfeeding among them. Black children are least likely to be breastfed and most likely to be overweight or obese. According to the CDC, in 2008 only 20% of African American mothers breastfed exclusively for 6 months compared to 40% of Hispanic mothers and 35% of white mothers.

Knowing that Michelle Obama breastfed both her daughters, breastfeeding advocates are hopeful that breastfeeding will become a core component of her anti-obesity campaign. Many would like the First Lady to publicly endorse breastfeeding, but whether that will happen remains to be seen, given that prior support for breastfeeding by the Federal government has a somewhat checkered past.

The controversy surrounding the National Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign launched in 2004 is still fresh in the minds of many. In a battle perceived by many as health versus wealth, the formula industry thought the campaign messages were too strong, while breastfeeding advocates felt they weren’t strong enough. The fact that it was a ground-breaking campaign that went further than any previous administration was lost in the debate along with its message that “Babies were born to be breastfed.” But if anyone can elevate the discussion of breastfeeding, it’s the First Lady.

Solving the problem of childhood obesity won’t be easy. Changing how and what America’s kids eat will require the cooperation of everyone involved in food production, distribution, and marketing—parents, teachers, childcare providers, healthcare providers, farmers, distributors, media outlets, and government agencies. It’s a battle we can’t afford to lose. The lives of our children depend on it.

Posted by @ 4:55 pm
Shelved under Single Moms

baby breastfeedingNew York Governor David A. Paterson announced last week that $6.98 million awarded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) will “fund policy, system and environmental changes to improve nutrition, increase physical activity and cut tobacco use in New York.” Only five initiatives are part of the new wellness funding, and one of them is breastfeeding.

Increase physical activity at elementary schools; educate the public about high-calorie foods; decrease tobacco use through advertising and free cessation service—all pretty typical point sources to improve health. But there is one more on the list: “Improve support to new mothers to promote breastfeeding, especially exclusive breastfeeding.”

Along with the otherwise typical list of healthy objectives, breastfeeding stands out—exclusive breastfeeding, no less. In the press release announcing the new funding, New York State says that “Breastfeeding has been shown to promote optimal infant growth, protect infants from infections, and reduce obesity in both mother and infant.” As part of this initiative, the State’s Department of Health will provide training and technical assistance on policies and practices to hospitals that provide maternity care and to programs serving low-income mothers.

Breastfeeding has long been recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as a strategy for obesity prevention, with states across the country supporting breastfeeding in one form or another. But to support it under the banner of general health and wellness programs, along with obesity prevention and smoking cessation, is a major shift in the perceived part breastfeeding plays in the health of both baby and mother.

What does the shift mean exactly? According to New York State, breastfeeding is considered important, very important, and the state believes it to be in your best interest to exclusively breastfeed for the first six months of your baby’s life.

So it’s not just the hippie mom with the tie dye baby sling (or choose your favorite overzealous advocate) telling you it’s important—it’s the State of New York. With government not only accepting breastfeeding’s place in the hierarchy of health but advocating it so directly, it could be a new dawn for new and expectant mothers who are now being asked to breastfeed for the health of it!

Posted by @ 5:05 pm
Shelved under Single Moms

iStock_000009995723XSmallFor the first time seven years ago investigators compared the effectiveness of belt-positioning booster seats (BPBSs) with the use of seat belts alone in children 4-7 years of age. They found that children restrained with only a standard issue seat belt were 59% more likely to be injured in a crash compared to those restrained in a child booster seat.

Fast forward to today. Motor vehicle accidents are still the leading cause of death in children 1 to 14 years of age, accounting for nearly 1400 deaths and 185,000 injuries a year. Fifty-two states have enacted laws that require the use of child safety seats for children 0-4 years of age, but only 25 states require booster seats for children up to the age of 8.

When the first study was conducted in 2003 by researchers at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, most of the children using booster seats were 4 and 5 years old. In an effort to examine the effectiveness of booster seat use in older children, those same researchers conducted a second study in 2009 .

Method
Researchers reviewed data from crashes involving at least 1 child younger than the age of 15 and seated in the rear seat of the vehicle. Prior to inclusion, the researchers contacted the parent/driver to determine the location of the child in the vehicle, the location of the impact on the vehicle, and the degree of injury suffered or medical care sought for the children in the vehicles. Data was ultimately obtained on 52% of the crashes that met the inclusion criteria.

Injuries were classified as none, minor, or major. For the purpose of analysis, uninjured children and children suffering minor injuries such as cuts, scrapes, or bruises were classified in one category. A second category consisted of children suffering major injuries including internal organ injuries, concussions, spinal cord injuries, and fractures of the arms or legs. A total of 6591 crashes involving 7151 children aged 4-8 years were included in the final analysis. Seventy percent of the children were restrained by seat belts, and 30% were in child booster seats.

Results
Only 1.15% of the children experienced a major injury. Those restrained in child booster seats were much less likely to experience a major injury (0.67%) compared with those restrained by seat belts (1.36%). After adjusting for the child’s age, weight, and placement in vehicle, severity of the crash, vehicle model year, and other driver and crash characteristics, the investigators found that children restrained in child booster seats were 45% less likely to experience a severe injury compared with seat belt-restrained children. Approximately 60% of the children were in booster seats with high backs, and 40% were in backless booster seats. The risk for injury was not significantly different between the 2 types of booster seats. The investigators concluded that placing a child in a booster seat reduces the risk for severe injury by nearly 50%, and that both types of booster seats provide comparable protection.

The bottom line
Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death in children 1-15 years of age. Data show that belt-positioning booster seats prevent serious injury and may even save lives. Yet only 30% of the 4-8 year-olds in the study were using BPBSs at the time of the accident. It’s time for health professionals to make parents aware of the importance of child booster seats. And it’s time for parents to provide the protection every child deserves.

Safety tips

  • Belt-positioning booster seats are designed for children weighing 40 to 80 pounds and up to 4.9 inches tall. For most children this is from 4-8 years of age. Younger children should be restrained in toddler or child safety seats. Older children should wear a lap-shoulder belt.
  • Before you install any child restraint seat, make sure you read the owner manual that comes with your vehicle as well as the seat.
  • Booster seats should be used in the rear seat only.
  • Backless booster seats are designed to be used in rear seats with a high seat back or head rest and a lap-should belt.
  • The lap-shoulder belt should be snug but comfortable. The shoulder belt should cross the child’s shoulder rather than her neck. The lap bet should rest below the hip bones.
  • Never put the shoulder belt behind the shoulder or under the arm.

Next